Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
I'm surprised by my own zeal over this issue and, if you look up my other posts, I think you will find this is atypical of me. Perhaps it's because, unlike most other discussions I participate in, I've actually had personal experience in this issue and the original poster struck a nerve...
To speak of respecting others' wishes, how about respecting my wish to photograph public property. If your argument is going to be so one-sided, it should at least be on the side of the one exercising their rights, rather than the one trying to infringe upon the rights of others...
Well, when the original poster uses words like "freak" and "overprotective" to describe people's reaction to their children being photographed, it really doesn't sound like they're being camera shy for their children. I think I made it clear that I was referring to parents who are afraid of "child predators," for lack of a better generic term. In my case, the woman felt I was a potential kidnapper. This is what most of us are talking about...
I had thought that the Fourth Amendment would protect you from this but I'm surprised to discover that requesting ID is not considered a search. However, it should be noted that this is the only right that the police have without probable cause.
Perhaps more importantly, this is not relevent to the topic of the thread... |
I don't think that my or charlatan's stance is one sided. What he said, and I support, is the notion to respect other people in public places. we can hopefully discuss this without getting into a rights v. rights discussion--because all you will do is find that people have conflicting notions of their "rights". and given the hysteria of child abductions in our country right now, inconsiderate actions are likely to result in legislative or local bodies passing more restrictions on photography in public spaces.
the words used in the OP were interpretations by an observer. We don't actually know the motives of the parents. while you were accused of something unreasonably, none of us know whether those parents have actually had experience with molestors actuallly trying to snipe pictures of their children. if they have, or if there were reports of a lurker snapping lurid photos of kids upside down on the jungle gym, would you still argue that they were acting irrationally?
I know you were specifically referring to this particular fear or irrationality. but I was using another example to illustrate that people don't want their pictures taken for a number of reasons. I hope you agree with me that you can't decide what their motives are unless they tell you. and in the case where they say something that's unfounded, coming off like an ass (and I'm not saying you did or would) isn't going to alleviate their concerns.
neither you nor they know what others intend to do with pictures of their children, despite what your intentions are. look, you can't post pictures of children on this forum, regardless of if they are clothed. you can't control what molestors will do with your photos, but you can control the composition and the presentation. let's not get into a discussion of whether parents have a right to protect the image of their children, let's focus on a parent's obligation to protect his or her child because parents will react pragmatically, not legally. and since you are an amateur, I suspect you are unaware of journalist ethics. while not legally binding, they reflect the general consensus of the profession. and since you purport to be acting in that capacity, would you not agree that it's prudent to abide by the ethical considerations the body of professionals have agreed upon?
if the intent is to get the landscape, and people don't want to be in the picture, then wait until the shot is clear.
if the intent is to get a packed park for ambiance, then snap away. but why become irate when anyone, child or parent, desires to not be in your composition? the scene described in these instances is the exception, not the norm so there really isn't too much issue to get all worked up with one another in this thread.
why create a negative impression of photographers? I'm one, and I don't act insensative and haven't ever had a problem obtaining a composition I was seeking (outside the candids I described already).
what could you possibly hope to gain other than creating tension between the public and photographers?
charlatan's point was to be respectful of your "subjects'" wishes and the current social climate surrounding perceived danger to children, and not be an ass. that doesn't sound like a one-sided argument to me, so I chimed in. I think our position is for a balanced and respectful interaction between composer and composed.